[LLVMdev] Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?

[Arnaud A. de Grandmaison]

I confirm the shared_ptr change fixes the issue. I will recommit the aarch64/pbqp test then.

 

Thanks David !

--

Arnaud

 

From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] 
Sent: 11 September 2014 01:06
To: Lang Hames
Cc: Arnaud De Grandmaison; LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:

Oooh. Neat. Thanks Dave. Please go ahead and commit that.

 

Committed in 217563.

Running the PBQP test without my change under valgrind didn't show any memory leak, but hopefully with Arnaud's change and valgrind he can see the leak and then verify that my change addresses it... *fingers crossed*

 

 

Arnaud - I have no idea whether Dave's patch will help with this bug, but it's certainly worth testing.

 

- Lang.

 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

While I'm not sure where the leak is, using some pre-canned memory management might help... 

Attached is a patch that changes this allocation to use shared_ptr, perhaps it'll address the bug?

(ideally we shouldn't need the intrusive ref counting (std::enable_shared_from_this) but instead have a weak_set that has std::weak_ptr in it & implicitly removes elements as they become null (probably on a harvesting schedule, rather than with a direct callback as is currently implemented))​

 <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0jpkch3iC_7TXFVU2hCcUpfZXM/edit?usp=drive_web>  pbqp_leak.diff

​

 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote:

Hi Lang,

 

In PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build, around line 360, we have code looking like:

 

…

PBQP::Vector newCosts(g.getNodeCosts(node));

addPhysRegCoalesce(newCosts, pregOpt, cBenefit);

g.setNodeCosts(node, newCosts);

…

 

I suspect the leak occurs around the setNodeCosts method, and I have trouble understanding how it handles the case where the node already has costs.

 

It seems to me that:

- we make of copy of the node’s costs (probably because someone else can refer to it ?)

- we modify the copy

- we set the node’s new costs. But what is supposed to happen there, especially in the CostAllocator part ?

 

Could you shed some light there ?

 

Thanks,

Arnaud

 

 

 

From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] 
Sent: 10 September 2014 19:26
To: Arnaud De Grandmaison
Subject: Re: Leaks in PBQPBuilderWithCoalescing::build ?

 

Thanks Arnaud!

 

- Lang.

 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <arnaud.degrandmaison at arm.com> wrote:

Hi Lang,

 

For your information, the leak sanitizer found something when I committed my patch:

 

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4506/steps/check-llvm%20asan/logs/stdio

 

I will try to have a look at it.

 

Cheers,

--

Arnaud A. de Grandmaison

 

 


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140911/1989b5e6/attachment.html>